ass of the day

Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen". [emphasis mine]

TrackBack

» SLOWWWWWW from Discount Blogger
Looks like SiteMeter has slowed my site down substantially. I don't quite know what's going on with it, really. Other sites don't seem to be having problems at all, so I assume that it probably has something to do with... [Read More]

» My new best friend from Too Much To Dream
According to Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London (and apparently at least one ant shy of a picnic), current fascist dictator president of the US, George W. Bush, is the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably... [Read More]

Comments

The undesirables have pretty much won out over the decent in England. They are so indoctrinated into that socialist B.S. that they automatically detest anyone who stands for something better. I suppose their proximity to the continent made their decline inevitable.

"Red Ken" is pretty notorious for being OTT (Over the top) on must about everything. It was quite a shock when he was elected Mayor. Nobody knew if this was just another example of "British irony" or that the city really took leave of its senses!

Actually, I think that colossal stupidity combined with the ability to mobilize terrifying powers of destruction does give him the edge over serial killers, who tend to murder their victims one at a time, and over AIDS, for which there are preventative measures. I reserve further comment lest I be lynched, but I think you get my point.

Yep,Laura,Bush is so stupid that he tricked large numbers of the Dems in Congress to back the resolution to authorize force. The moron cowboy and his drooling, brainless lackeys also managed (through use of their supernatural stupidity) to get the UN Security Council to pass resolution 1441. He's so stupid that he makes his opponents look...er...

And props to you for pointing out that serial killers tend to kill their victims one at a time, and that AIDS is preventable. But there were a bunch of other things that Michele mentioned. I'll pick one at random...say, Hitler. You didn't comment on him. Why would that be?

I live just outside London and I do understand why Ken Livingstone said these things. Though don't in a way agree with him.

Most Europeans beleive that Bush is upseting too many people. Whether it is right or wrong for him to do this is for another discussion. However, all it takes is for one of these people he has upset to send a Nuclear strike to the US and we have a full scale nuclear war on our hands. A Nuclear war is far more destructive than all the items mentioned in your list put together.

Sean: The most amazing thing is how Bush got the war resolution passed by lying about it three months after the vote.

Rich: I hate to break this to you, but those same people were upset before Bush (WTC, Khobar, Cole, you've seen the list before).

And I'm glad you think a nuclear strike on the US would be bad (although you seem to imply that's only because it would cause full-scale nuclear war which might affect you). But then, that's why we are currently hunting those people down and killing them before they have the chance.

Please don't think that because I am British that I am anti-american. It is not the case. Of course I am worried that a full scale nuclear strike would effect me. Wouldn't you? However a nuclear strike on anyone is just as bad.

Please don't think that because I am British that I am anti-american. It is not the case. Of course I am worried that a full scale nuclear strike would effect me. Wouldn't you? However a nuclear strike on anyone is just as bad.

Please don't think that because I am British that I am anti-american. It is not the case. Of course I am worried that a full scale nuclear strike would effect me. Wouldn't you? However a nuclear strike on anyone is just as bad.

Yeah arsehats like JJF think any Republican is a religious zealot, even though there seem to be quite a few religious Presidents who were Democrats too.

Ken is a Mayor Arsehole and is making London look incredibly childish and moronic. Wonder if he realises that this might just hurt London's bid for the Olympics. (Which is something I hope they fail miserably at of course.)

JJF, if you honestly believe that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq for "no good reason," you seriously need to straighten your asshat, because it's obviously slipped down over your eyes so you can't see shit.

Just a couple of things..
The preventative measures don't seem to be helping with AIDS all that much. Which makes another point to. Facts only help if people believe them. It's not stopping AIDS to make condoms if people don't use them and belive raping virgins will cure it.
There are preventative measures for our president too incidentally. We have elections for one thing, and a congress that controls the money. None of what we're doing in Iraq or Afghanistan could continue if Congress didn't aprove the money for it, and they can all be replaced too. Bush isn't a king, and the world is not at his mercy no matter what people with an agenda would like to make others believe. But again, don't let the facts get in the way of you making a point.
AIDS is preventable, but Bush isn't.. That's just stupid and I don't throw that word around much just because someone disagrees with me, but here it fits.

Rich, my point is only that Bush has only angered people who were already angry. Anyone attempting a strike, nuclear or otherwise, would be doing the same without Bush (hence the references to WTC, Khobar, and Cole, all pre-Bush).

I'm reminded of one of those scenes from action movies. Our hero runs through a bazaar fleeing the bad guys. Merchants, beggars, and street kids obstruct the pursuit, helping our hero escape. It used to be that the United States prided itself on having the goodwill of most of the world. Goodwill built up by countless acts of courtesy, respect, support, charity, and kindness. Trusted by our neighbors because we used our power like Robin Hood and Abraham Lincoln, to serve and protect the underdog, those who can't defend themselves. (Yes?)

For all the good he's accomplished, Bush continues to burn through all of America's goodwill. Our soldiers and diplomats and businessmen now find themselves in the role of our action hero's pursuers, blocked at every turn by those whose hearts and minds have been won by the pursued. So instead of friends helping us run down terrorists, bring down tyrants, open markets, and spread our ideals, people and governments don't even want us in the neighborhood. (Yes?)

For all the respect we earn by showing military prowess, we still must win hearts and minds. The current administration seems inept at this. So, can Bush's team learn the requisite behaviors and skills? Or should we recruit a management team that has that knowledge, skill, and ability?

My, my. And here I thought using the word "stupid" instead of some of my choicer epithets was a kindness. As for not comparing Bush to Hitler, I stopped when I did because although I think Bush has ample opportunity to beat Hitler's track record, I absolve him of deliberate genocidal malice. I do stick to "stupid", though. Would any of you prefer "mentally challenged," "carrying an intelligence deficit," or some other more PC term?

In a way, it's a lefthanded compliment to Americans. You have excellent technology for the purposes of destruction, as more than one war has proven. And you've survived having other fools as president, so I guess that could be considered a tribute to your political system. I would simply feel more comfortable if I felt able to trust Bush to make an intelligent decision on his own.

"As for not comparing Bush to Hitler, I stopped when I did because although I think Bush has ample opportunity to beat Hitler's track record, I absolve him of deliberate genocidal malice."

Typical self contradicting statement. It's obvious from your attitude that you think Bush can be worse than Hitler. This indicates quite directly that "deliberate genocidal malice" is a quality you believe Bush has, simply for the fact that one would have to have that ability in order to "beat" Hitlers record.

I am sick of all you asshats comparing Bush, and conservatives as a group, to Hitler.

Go to Germany, visit Auschwitz. Make sure you walk through the gas chambers. Visit the cramped "living" areas. See the pictures that they wont show the kids here. The piles of bodies.
Go here: http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/albums/palbum/p00/a0048p2.html
and tell me this: Where are the piles of bodies like these that were created by Bush? Iraq? ah yes.. I forgot, it was Bush that killed the hundreds of children and buried them in mass graves.

Maybe conservatives should start acting like the Nazi's you claim we are. We could start by taking asshats like you and your families and burn them to death in public. Then carry out experiments on your people without anesthesia. Hell, the Germans did it, so lets do the same, lets see how long you can survive torture, just so we can be sure.
We can gas entire groups of people from the left, and leave thier bodies to rot in piles in the street. We can execute your kind when we "judge" them to be stupid or useless...

Or perhaps you idiots can wake up and face the reality that we are NOTHING like the Nazi's you claim we are.

Phill Wolff, you make some points about goodwill being a positive thing even in the face of the fact that we can get by without it. Certainly it helps make things easier when others are pleased with us and support what we do. I disagree that we've burned through that goodwill though. I think those acts of courtesy, respect, support, charity, and kindness you speak of have just come to be taken for granted. We still do all of those things. We still offer aid and support to countless nations all over the world to try and make their lives better. I'm not talking about political changes here. I'm talking about food and medicine that we give. I'm talking about disaster relief to countries in need. We offer those things in the Billions of dollars and I believe we should. We help because we can and at heart we are as a nation kind and generous. Our quality of life and our wealth as a whole I believe morally requires us to help when we can. At one time that was unheard of, though, and countries saw us as the benefactor we were. They looked at their children that would have starved without the food we gave them or their sick that would have died with out the medicine we gave them and they were grateful. It garnered us goodwill. Now, though, we have reached a generation where the world has never had to survive on it's own and all of the things we do are taken for granted. The people we provide so much support to have decided we owe it to them. They deserve to be supported by the United States, so the same acts of kindness and generosity don't garner us any good will. We didn't burn through our goodwill. It just expired.
I'm sorry this comment was so long, Michele. I probably should have taken this to my blog.

Here's what I think is going on. 9/11 was bad, really bad. International cognitive dissonance set in:

"Something that bad could only happen to a nation that was truly rotten. America is too rich and too fat and imperialist and simplistic and bullies and warmongering and greedy and religious and. . . . That's why Muslim fanatics don't like them. They're not very likable.

"Now, [FILL IN COUNTRY] is peaceful and generous and sophisticated and agnostic, and we don't have much of an obesity problem. Therefore, we don't have anything to fear from the likes of al Qaeda. I can rest easy."